Courageous or Dumb? Giving Obama the Nobel Prize!

Unless you've been living in a box with your ears stuffed with cotton and your eyes taped shut, you probably know by now that The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm pretty sure it was one of the first things I heard this morning as I turned on the television to catch the morning news.

All I could think was this must sit like a sticky and volatile mixture of gasoline and nitroglycerin on the already smoldering faces of Obama haters. That thought was hard to deal with before I had my coffee so I quickly moved to a different perspective; I thought it's kinda like sitting next to the guy who wins three times in a row at Bingo, including the nightly Jackpot, and then waking up the next morning to see his face on television cashing in the winning Lottery ticket. You gotta concede the guy is living right or perhaps the smartest or luckiest guy around.

Was there any doubt that the Obama-haters would jump out right away and blame President Obama? Come on, it's not like he really had anything to do with this award - I'm sure he was as shocked as most of us to hear the news. None the less, the barrage has already started. The irony here is that the man, Alfred Nobel, who is behind this award

must literally be rolling around in his grave at all of the turmoil and uproar that today's selection has caused. Here we have an instrument that is supposed to recognize efforts towards peace creating so much discord.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Norway and Sweden were at that time still in union, and with Sweden responsible for all foreign policy, Nobel felt that the prize might be less subject to political corruption if awarded by Norway.

So presumably, this committee spent seven months scrutinizing the 205 resumes of dissident monks, human rights advocates, political figures, and other nominees before concluding that President Barack Obama was their man.

Quite possibly, Barack Obama was their best man. Think about it. When was the last time YOU did anything to promote or work for -" fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I'm not sure I've done any of that stuff lately. Heck, I don't even know what most of that means!

If President Obama did anything at all this year to that end, then I'd submit that he probably did more than anyone else because there are people fighting all over the globe and I don't see anyone out there doing anything to stop it or even slow it down.

In my heart of hearts though, I must consider if this was a political move by the committee to, perhaps, stimulate President Obama to keep working for and pursuing those lofty and illusive goals of peace.

Are they the puppeteers manipulating the puppet? Are those five members sitting around tonight sipping vodka thinking -"We've really done it! Alfred Nobel will be proud of us. Shucks, we deserve the Nobel Peace Prize."

Was this a Courageous move or a Dumb move by the Nobel Committee?

I don't know.... It's too close for me to call. But I enjoy thinking about it!

Time will surely tell!

New York City! "The Naked Cowboy"

Yep! It's true! There is a naked cowboy wondering (ooops Wandering) the streets of New York City with little more than a guitar, cowboy hat, and boots. And he's quite the attraction. I just wonder - where does he keep his car keys, wallet, and cell phone?


I snapped these photos of the naked cowboy while strolling through NYC.

On an educational note...

I learned a new word as a result of seeing this guy.
The word is: Busk

It's chiefly a British term and it means -

to entertain by dancing, singing, or reciting on the street or in a public place.

Our infamous cowboy is actually named - Robert John Burck. He was born December 23, 1970 in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is known as an American busker and prevails primarily around New York City's Times Square. He wears only cowboy boots, a hat, and briefs, with a guitar strategically placed to give the illusion of nudity.

(Wow! I learned a new word!) Fascinating!

According to Wikipedia:

Burck began busking in 1998 and first appeared on Venice Beach, Los Angeles. He immediately became a big hit after a friend suggested to him that he dress only in his underwear in order to generate higher earnings. Burck earned a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science at the University of Cincinnati. Burck is also a regular in the streets of the French Quarter during the New Orleans Mardi Gras season. He also makes appearances in his hometown of Cincinnati, at the Memorial Day weekend Taste of Cincinnati festival and the Riverfest Labor Day Festival. He has also made an appearance in Austin, Texas, during the South by Southwest Music Conference, and on January 25, 2009 he performed at a Leinster Rugby game in Donnybrook, Dublin, Ireland, singing his theme song "I'm the Naked Cowboy" before 18,000 spectators.

(Where does he keep his Passport?)

In a 2005 online interview, Burck cited Nancy Reagan and Garth Brooks as two of his leading inspirations. During the 2008 American presidential election Burck was a staunch supporter of John McCain, remarking that the Republican candidate was "older and wiser" than his opponent Barack Obama.[citation needed]

(I never said Burck was a smart guy)

Additionally, on November 22, 2008, he became an ordained minister, and on December 10, 2008 he was officially registered as a marriage officiant by the City of New York.

So in reality, he's not just another naked guy playing the guitar on the corner for chump change.

Play on Cowboy!

There's still a glimmer of hope for the rest of us!

Purple Gate/Purple Tickets - Do you ever get lost?

If you know anyone who attended the recent Presidential Inauguration, you may know someone who was stuck in the line at the infamous "Purple Gate."

I've listened to several reports from people who were in the purple gate line. Many, including a very dear friend, circumnavigated the blockage and were able to get in to view the inaugural speech.

Others, waited in the cold and never got in....... Today, while surfing, I stumbled upon this video by RaymondJLee:



Interesting compilation. Isn't YouTube great? There were several comments on this YouTube post, I'm highlighting a few to give you a sense of how some people felt.

MichaelMWelch - said:

VERY sorry to hear of your lousy experience. ( In fact, the Purple Gate *did* open when it was supposed to at 8 (not at 9; tix said 9, but they announced the week before that it would be 8). I got in the Purple Gate line at 5AM and was fairly close to the front (only maybe 200 or so people in front of me). It opened at 8 on the dot for wheelchair-bound. That took 20 min or so, then the regular line moved in A-OK, no problems up through where I was. Dunno why it broke down further back





Steele360 - said:



Having a purple ticket went from making me happy as hell to disappointed as hell. thanks for the video



eddivinity - said:



Count yourself at least a little lucky that you weren't stuck in the tunnel for 4 hours. We flew all the way out from California with purple tickets from Nancy Pelosi. We eventually made it in after they opened a gate sporadically while the crowd was surging. Only minutes before the actual swearing in.At the end of the day, while the ceremony was disappointing for a lot of people, it's still nice to know Obama is Pres.



So having read these comments and watched the video, I dug a little deeper.
In my digging, I came up with the name - Patricia Jones Blessman, PhD.

The name -Patricia Jones Blessman- is burning up the blog waves today.

It appears that she will receive a refund of $10,000 for a contribution.

Patricia Jones Blessman with husband, child, and Barack Obama

Regardless of your political perspective, I imagine you all have an opinion on the idea of paying for something and then not getting what you were promised. Or making some sort of sacrifice with the expectation of receiving something in return and never getting it. Well, I learned today that Patricia Jones Blessman was a purple ticket holder who gave $10,000 to the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). According the the Washington Post online, Blessman followed the refund protocol outlined by American Express and has received a refund pending review. Blessman complains that she was not able to see Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, a privilege for which she had paid big bucks. She wants her cash back!

Blessman and her husband both donated to Obama's presidential campaign. In addition to giving $10,000 to help fund his inaugural celebration. Jones was a field organizer for the campaign and blogged on Obama's campaign Website. Follow this think to view some of her topics: PJBlessmanPHD community Blog

Things got a bit animated on Facebook to under the topic:

Patricia Jones Blessman PhD Is a Pompous Ass

I must admit, I was a bit bored today and needed some entertainment. This qualified - I got an education on prostitution, law, and volunteering. Thanks go to Zenobia Grey, Apple Leena, Ferris Bueller, Aaron Goldfarb and Evan Rogers for adding some creative comments for my enjoyment.

I gotta know - In her mind, was PJB making a contribution to a candidate she supported or was she merely buying a ticket to the Inauguration?

It's just occurred to me that I've been lost for a few hours on this topic. Enough wasted time.....

Back to work!

We've Got To Remember Some Things! Morton Downey Jr.

Another Creative Idea! Well, maybe.

Who could forget this face?

And his idea and formula:

Screaming audience + Screaming Guest + Screaming Obnoxious chain smoking Host

=

Successful Talk Show!

In case you were sitting around the house wondering where "Trash TV" originated -

Morton Downey, Jr. (born Sean Morton Downey; December 9, 1933 - March 12, 2001) was an American talk show host of the 1980s. He is given credit for pioneering the "trash TV" format. His work led to the "trash talk" genre of Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, Ricki Lake, Steve Wilkos and many more....

Morton Downey Jr. started as a talk show host at KFBK-AM in Sacramento, California. His abrasive and right wing style quickly made him popular in a somewhat local market. His nationwide fame, however, came when he left Sacramento for Secaucus, New Jersey where his highly controversial television program took off. The show was taped for two years before it was canceled for low ratings. During those two years the show enjoyed a brief bit of fame and fortune. The program featured screaming matches among Downey, his guests, and his audience members. Downey was known for using a large silver bowl for an ashtray, he would chain smoke during the show and blow smoke in his guests' faces.

(An interesting tidbit - the man who succeeded Downey at KFBK was Rush Limbaugh.)

I watched a few of his shows in the 80's. I didn't agree with his politics or methodology, but I initially enjoyed the antics. Unfortunately for him, I, as well as many others, grew weary of his obnoxious and deriding behavior. In my estimation, what started as a good plan ultimately backfired on Downey. His audience began to hate and despise him more than his guests. That proved to be a formula for failure because eventually, the viewers just stopped tuning in. I think the new-age Trash TV talk show hosts understand that they have to walk a very fine line. They want to be exciting and stimulating and engaging, but they know that anger and frustration should be focused on the guests and not them. They know that viewers will develop an appetite for the hapless and piteous people and tune in for the shock value alone. Most of them have learned to play "middle-man and mediator" quite well. Egging each side and the audience on without getting trapped in the middle. And it works. People will sit around the house all day and watch reruns of Jerry Springer and then call their friends to discuss the show. People will tune in to see virtually the same scenario with different faces and names attached. - For example, how many times have you seen the paternity suit/Who's your Daddy?/DNA testing format? I can't bear to suffer through it anymore. But occasionally, while I'm channel surfing I'll run across an episode where they are waiting for the lab results to determine paternity.

Anyway, I congratulate the late Morton Downey Jr. for his uniqueness and creativity. His efforts and short-lived success combined with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, are generally cited as the catalysts for the more aggressive, opinion-based (My Way is Right, your way is wrong) talk radio and Trash TV that we enjoy today.

On a different note, I have to giggle when I think about how the Fairness Doctrine came to be repealed. First, here's some background:

The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station was balanced and fair. "The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."
(see the above link on Fairness Doctrine for more)

In other words, (my words) as a broadcasting company, you just couldn't go out and broadcast one side of an argument or issue. You had to show both sides of the issue and make an attempt to be fair.

So here's some irony - During the recent Presidential election when I was glued to the television and held captive by the political pundits, I heard so many times from McCain/Palin supporters as well as McCain that they were not getting "Fair" coverage by the press. Additionally, they claimed that most, if not all, (Was FOX included?) the stations were broadcasting with bias in favor of Barack Obama.

There was even a huge campaign to get Americans to turn off ABC, CBS, and NBC and not watch these stations for the duration of the election process because they weren't being Fair. Don't believe me....? Click on the link below:

Click Here: Join other Americans who are tired of their promotion of Barack Obama and their attack on Sarah Palin. Take the pledge to not watch ABC, NBC or CBS until after the November elections!

Apparently, nearly 128,000 people joined in.

What if this was true? Let's assume CBS, NBC, and ABC were completely unfair to McCain/Palin. Who do you suppose we could thank for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed this to happen?


Let's start with Ronald Reagan.

Are you surprised? Now we all know that Reagan was an American hero who played a huge part in tearing down the Berlin Wall; Some would argue - in much the same way that Al Gore built the Internet - But did you know that during the 80's and the era of deregulation, Reagan appointed Mark Fowler as the Chairman of the FCC. Fowler avowed to kill the fairness doctrine asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. But wait a second, there's more... In the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulation ideas and his long-standing goal of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congress once again tried to make the doctrine into law again during the Daddy Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.


Perhaps more interesting is that in 2007 Senator McCain joined Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) to introduce the “Broadcaster Freedom Act.”


The following is taken from McCain's website:


SENATOR McCAIN INTRODUCES BROADCASTER FREEDOM ACT


“Since President Reagan’s repeal of the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ the number of talk radio shows nationwide has grown from fewer than 100 to over 1,000 today. In addition to talk radio, Americans are able to find opposing viewpoints in more places than ever before, including the Internet,” Senator McCain said.





“With the great number of media sources available today, divergent viewpoints do not have to be offered on the same radio or television show, but can be found simply by channel surfing, reading a newspaper or browsing an Internet blog .





“The legislation would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ a regulation that had required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance. “This regulation had a chilling affect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the Federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered.”



Rush Limbaugh on his radio program said:


"Three salutes to Mike Pence from Indiana. He basically proposed an amendment to disallow federal funds to be used to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and it won big, 319 to 100-something. When the rubber met the road, the Democrats did not have the guts to vote for this. It wasn't even close."


I'm not claiming that these are ringing endorsements for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the Broadcaster Freedom Act, but I tend to lean in favor of the repeal of the doctrine. I think there are enough stations and sources out there to adequately reflect most, if not all, sides of important issues. I do find it a tad bit ironic in my mind though that McCain would whine about a system that he helped create, continues to support, and sponsors legislation to ensure it's succession. You can't have it both ways. If you want every station to be "FAIR" then support legislation to that end.

Just my thoughts!

And How does Barack Obama feel about the Fairness Doctrine?

According to an Article in B & C (Broadcasting & Cable) last year -

Obama Does not support the return of Fairness Doctrine!

Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why (then) Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."


Anyway, if you want to read more on the Fairness Doctrine, here are some good reads:

1. The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem - by Adrian Cronauer



2. After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest - by Patricia Aufderheide.



3. The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy- by Timothy A. Brennan

If you want to study up more on Morton Downey Jr., do some research on his fight with fellow radio talk show host Wally George (each charging that the other was not conservative). This fight led to police tackling Downey to the ground. I couldn't find any vintage footage of this but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.



For sure, Downey has left his mark on Trash TV.

I'm sure he's laughing at us all!

In his characteristic way!

I've posted a few YouTube videos for the memories.

Misappropriation of Name or Likeness - Obama Style

Okay, try not to get too bored here.

And those of you with law degrees, try not to get too picky.


The past four weeks spent locked in a court room have led me to uncharted territory with respect to the law. (Oh no, Here comes a legal related blog:)


Take for starters, the legal ramifications of using the Name or Likeness of another without their permission. (I had to do a bit of research for this subject - so bear with me)



Here's the background:


In most states, you can be sued for using some one's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. People will sometimes run into trouble when they use some one's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. For example, if you took a photo of Madonna, pasted it on 5,000 water bottles and sold them for a profit (or a loss) you could be in a bit of trouble. The victim could then sue you for their share of the profits and for damages. Some states also prohibit the use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses:



(1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation")

(2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)



Because of the similarities between misappropriation and right of publicity claims, courts and legal commentators often confuse them.


So what's all of that legal Mumbo Jumbo have to do with Obama?

It's all about Shepard Fairey who is involved in a lawsuit that may be the precursor to subsequent suits being filed regarding the use of the likeness of Barack Obama. In a preemptive strike, the street artist Shepard Fairey filed a lawsuit on Monday against The Associated Press, asking a federal judge to declare that he is protected from copyright infringement claims in his use of a news photograph as the basis for a now ubiquitous campaign poster image of President Obama. see the story: Artist sues over Obama image

The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan after The Associated Press said it had determined that it owned the image, which Mr. Fairey used for posters and stickers. The photo, of Obama at the National Press Club in April 2006, was taken for The A.P. by a freelance photographer, Mannie Garcia. According to the suit, A.P. officials contacted Mr. Fairey’s studio late last month demanding payment for the use of the photo and a portion of any money he makes from it.

I'll be following this case to see if Fairey's aggressive move pays off. I'm also curious to see if this "Name or Likeness" issue holds up for political figures holding a public office.

Look up in the Sky!

When you're driving around Los Angeles you're likely to see just about anything. And I do mean anything......

Today as I was driving around just north of the intersection of Fairfax and Beverly and I had to stop and look. I almost couldn't believe my eyes! So I pulled out my camera and snapped a shot of the image before it disappeared.

I thought - someone had clearly caught Barack Obama in his off hours masquerading in costume.

At least that's what I thought at first. And then I heard this clip of Senator Obama speaking at the 63rd Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner on October 16, 2008.

So it's official. Barack Obama is Superman's younger brother.

You can hear the rest of Obama's entertaining speech by following this link: Obama at Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

The Debate. Closer than I expected.......

McCain throws down a pair of 3's
but Obama wins with a pair of 4's!

That's the way I saw it. After 90 minutes of debate, there were no real knock - out punches. And nothing really glamorous. McCain consistently reminded the audience that "Senator Obama doesn't understand." And Obama got even by reminding everyone several times that McCain is tied at the hip to the Bush administration. They sparred a bit over the economy, Iraq, and Iran - And disagreed on an interpretation of Kissinger's view on meeting with heads of rogue nations - but each punched and counter-punched well. I must admit that McCain did better than I expected him to. While he appeared to be a bit patronizing and disrespectful at times, he managed to tough it out and blow his own horn on several occasions. All this was accomplished with no senior moments or loss of temper.

Obama, who was playing into McCain's strength in foreign policy, clearly showed up prepared. He appeared quite sharp, and presidential but he was not able to deliver the punishing blows to get McCain on the ropes. Obama gets credit for throwing a "Sugar Ray Leonard" style flurry - but there was very little damage. Perhaps a strong sound bite for tomorrow's news but that's about it. The consensus (from the experts and media) seems to be that Obama won the debate. I suspect many voters were left unchanged. In other words, if they walked in tonight supporting Obama, they probably walked out still supporting him and the same for McCain supporters.

On a different note, Senator Joe Biden made an appearance and delivered a great post debate commentary. On the other hand, Sarah Palin was conspicuously absent!

Next week will be their turn! I hope they can offer up something a bit juicier!

John McCain - Courageous or Dumb?

Deal or No Deal? Bailout or No Bailout?


Debate or No Debate? Courageous or Dumb?


Last night kicked off the new season of Survivor Gabon. So far, one allegedly weaker contestant Gillian Larson and one so called "Toxic" contestant, Michelle Chase, have been issued their walking papers. The timing of the season opener and the political events of the day were an uncanny reminder of my post about Erik Reichenbach titled Courageous or Dumb? during the last Survivor series. I am very curious how/if this statement might apply to today's politics and John McCain's recent decision to suspend his campaign.


From where I sit in my comfortable chair it's easy to observe the poker game going on between presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. I watched as John McCain, faced with declining polls and a strengthening opponent looked at his cards and determined he had a very weak hand. I feel he opted to bluff his way through this round and try to draw for the inside straight. Most poker players know that's a long shot. By suspending his presidential campaign and offering to delay the debate, McCain, who has admitted he is weak in the Economy department, hoped to signal to the public that he is being responsible and demonstrating sound leadership ability. He contended that the bail-out plan, and the "Broken Economy", are more important than the debate and they should be addressed immediately. Furthermore, he maintained that it is imperative that he and Obama put aside their differences, at least for now, and evoke some bipartisan spirit and fix this crisis.



Was this a bluff gone bad? Was this an attempt by McCain to buy himself more time and perhaps wait for voter sentiment to change? Was he hoping to capitalize on an economic bail-out plan that seemed to be headed for a slam dunk? Was he attempting to give himself more time to prepare for this critical debate? Or is he just an arrogant presidential candidate who wants his piece of the pie?



According to the WashingPost.com:




The objective evidence is that things got worse, not better, in Washington after McCain arrived. There was a tentative deal, announced by congressional leaders, when McCain landed in Washington. Hours later, there was chaos and recriminations.



There also seems to be some question now on whether McCain had even read the 2 1/2 page Republican proposal at all making him look even less prepared and less presidential. (McCain's team is running damage control on this issue as I type) Watch this and you be the judge:







In all fairness to McCain, the initial proposal for a bail out was loaded with flaws. In addition, it was supported by a Lame Duck President - George W. Bush, who is perceived to have a history of misleading the public and supporting big business at the expense of the "little guy." The constituents are demanding representation and accountability from their representatives. This is a very complex problem with an unclear solution. The legislators want to put forth a solution but the idea of corporate executives stuffing their pockets with large amounts of cash as they walk away from failing companies is hard to swallow. Furthermore, the dichotomy of bailing out the "big guy" while the "little folks" are facing foreclosure looms and would be difficult to digest. It's quite possible that more representatives vocalized their opposition to the plan as the time passed and this was irrespective of McCain's presence. It's also possible that there was some misunderstanding on which plan McCain was referring to when he said he was not familiar with and had not read the plan.



From a different perspective and the other side of the table, I also watched as Barack Obama eyed his cards and looked down at a pair of fours. Not a particularly strong hand but better than McCains. His hand may have appeared stronger given his rising favor in the polls and Sarah Palin's less than stellar interview with Katie Couric (follow this link for the interview). His hand was possibly tainted by his, and Joe Biden's vote on the "bridge to nowhere" but certainly the stronger hand so far. Barack Obama took the opportunity to remind the voting public that the President of the United States may be required to perform several important tasks at once and make McCain appear less than capable for suggesting a time out or truce while they worked on the bail out.



Interesting stuff Huh?




Well as of this moment.... The shoot out is ON! McCain and Obama will face off tonight with loaded guns in their first Presidential Debate. They are collecting their final cards for the day and starting to wager. McCain is all in and Obama has just shoved a large stack of chips to the middle of the table. We will soon find out if John McCain will draw to his inside straight? Will he prove to be Courageous? Or Dumb? Will Barack Obama trump him by calling his bluff and beating him with a meager pair of fours? Or will Obama wipe the stage with McCain and throw down 3 or 4 of a kind? Maybe even a Full House! Hard to say right now but I'll be watching the debate tonight!

Tune in to see who held the best poker hand.

What a week! And if nothing else, these are exciting times.